Let's conclude it, Lin Dan is the best MS baddy player in human history.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

This question comes up because people have quite different ideas of what 'best baddy player' means. It could mean any of the following (and implied by some posters)
1. He has the highest probability of winning against any player.
2. He has the best technique
3. He is the most famous player (good or bad)
4. He has most fans (or admirers)
A marketing survey is likely to focus on meaning 3 or 4. What is discussed probably implies 1. Historical record will settle that LD has the best winning record against current players in the past 18 months. Guessing what will happen with a time machine is anyone's guess.

For that matter, If ZJW is born 15 years later, I suspect he will beat LD since any advantage of evolution is eliminated.

I disagree, best simply means better than anyone else that's it. No matter who you're playing with you're. Like LCW could have more fans on BC, but he is not a true #1 until he beat LD regularly.

Somewhere in the forum you can find the 1985 All England final between Zhao and Morten Frost. You can watch the match and conclude if the about 20 year old Zhao anticipation and athleticism. Remember Morten Frost, was a top singles player and regarded a master tactician.

My personal opinion on Zhao at 19, was already a great player, great court coverage skills (technically superior than the current Lin Dan) and excellent shots selection, tactically speaking. When we compare the attacking ability, Zhao already had a good net play at that age which allowed him to create the attacking opportunities for himself- can we analyse the placements for example, the angles that ZJH could produce vs LD?

Also on this forum, there is an interview on coach Fang Kai Xiang. Look for it and find out his views on badminton. It's an good read and I found it educational.

Yes, I've watched that match on Youtube, but I am not convinced. Simply open up any one of today's game, doesn't has to be LD, and you'll notice immediately the difference between the game pace.

If you are a competitive badminton player, you should know that a fast pacing game would make your regular play and anticipation that much harder.

Now let's look at Peter Gade and Taufik, both have excellent skill and technique, but they are simply outmatch by LCW and LD. That's said, good technique is only one aspect of the game, physical fitness also take a huge part of it. Not to mention LD has excellent technique also, he is extremely deceptive and accurate with his over head shoot, good touches at the net and excellent retrieving ability.

If you've watch this year AE, the commentator (Gail??) also believed that LD has topped all the greats from the past since the Olympic.

Or put it this way...

LD = 4 times AE under his belt (or 5 times, some would agree )
ZJH = 2 times

I personally think he is the best player in 21-rally point system.
With 15 point system, he is one of the best but NOT necessarily THE BEST.
21-point systems suits his style of playing, 15-point system suits LCW style more.
End.

I dont see how being more defensive give LCW an advantage in the old system? If you are referring about the game lasting longer... LD stamina is at least equal if not much superior than LCW... Also in terms of getting long streak of points, LD does that a lot better when he increases his pace than anyone else...

I have watched the best players from the late 1950s to the present. You cannot compare players from different eras. In the old days the game was an amateur's game; today it is professional. You cannot compare amateurs with professionals. Training methods have also changed; the modern game has benefited from a better understanding of sports science. Today's racquets are very different from those of the past-razor sharp vs blunt weapons of war. The competition has also leapfrogged, unlike the old days when top rated players almost always made it to the final few rounds. There are many hurdles to overcome today before a top player gets into even the quarter finals. In the past a top player used the few few rounds more for practice sessions. I have seen the great Rudy Hartono many times but I do not think that at his best he could get past the 2nd ground of today's super series. This applies to even the great Tong Si Fu, Wong Peng Soon or even ZJH.
Sometimes nostalgia colours our view of things that span a long period of time. As one ages his view or memory of the distant past is more vivid than the recent past.

It's subjective..

Originally Posted by mettayogi

This question comes up because people have quite different ideas of what 'best baddy player' means. It could mean any of the following (and implied by some posters)
1. He has the highest probability of winning against any player.
2. He has the best technique
3. He is the most famous player (good or bad)
4. He has most fans (or admirers)
A marketing survey is likely to focus on meaning 3 or 4. What is discussed probably implies 1. Historical record will settle that LD has the best winning record against current players in the past 18 months. Guessing what will happen with a time machine is anyone's guess.
...

..to add, one could also ask:
- How do we define as "the best MS baddy player in human history"??
- What criteria(s) or achievement(s) must one have to be considered "the best MS baddy player in human history"??
- Is it by the number of titles won? The number of major titles (AE, WC & Olympics) won?

If we are to include the WC (started in 1977) and the inclusion of badminton in the Olympics (started in 1992), looking at LinDan's achievements of winning the 3 current major titles, yes, he's arguably the only one to have accomplished the 3 major titles.
As a comparison, I would even compare LinDan's current domination to how Air Jordan dominated the nearly watered-down NBA for most of the 90s (not to say the current MS field is as watered down).
However, neither the WC nor the Olympics go back to the early days of All-England. And in either case's absence in the past, neither it's LinDan's fault or those great players of the past.

And then, one might come up with the argument below..

Originally Posted by Wong8Egg

...
LD = 4 times AE under his belt (or 5 times, some would agree )
ZJH = 2 times

4 > 2

..another baddy great Rudy Hartono had won it 8 times, and is still the all-time mark for an AE MS title. Some would even say the All-England is arguably the most prestigious badminton title in the world...Does that make Rudy Hartono all in a class by himself??..

So, the way i see it, yes, *as of now* LinDan is in a class all by himself.
But unless our world ends in some kind of a catastrophe, say this weekend or next month or a yr from now (God forbid), human history will continue on and we can't really judge/compare/gauge until humanity really vanishes from this earth. Who would ever predicted, during the 50s or during ZJH's or Yang Yang's time, that a player of LinDan's caliber will appear & dominate? Same question now, will there be another baddy great in the future??..

Yes, I've watched that match on Youtube, but I am not convinced. Simply open up any one of today's game, doesn't has to be LD, and you'll notice immediately the difference between the game pace.

If you are a competitive badminton player, you should know that a fast pacing game would make your regular play and anticipation that much harder.

Now let's look at Peter Gade and Taufik, both have excellent skill and technique, but they are simply outmatch by LCW and LD. That's said, good technique is only one aspect of the game, physical fitness also take a huge part of it. Not to mention LD has excellent technique also, he is extremely deceptive and accurate with his over head shoot, good touches at the net and excellent retrieving ability.

If you've watch this year AE, the commentator (Gail??) also believed that LD has topped all the greats from the past since the Olympic.

wong8egg, i share yourview. I will elaborate more below

Originally Posted by viver

Somewhere in the forum you can find the 1985 All England final between Zhao and Morten Frost. You can watch the match and conclude if the about 20 year old Zhao anticipation and athleticism. Remember Morten Frost, was a top singles player and regarded a master tactician.

My personal opinion on Zhao at 19, was already a great player, great court coverage skills (technically superior than the current Lin Dan) and excellent shots selection, tactically speaking. When we compare the attacking ability, Zhao already had a good net play at that age which allowed him to create the attacking opportunities for himself- can we analyse the placements for example, the angles that ZJH could produce vs LD?

Also on this forum, there is an interview on coach Fang Kai Xiang. Look for it and find out his views on badminton. It's an good read and I found it educational.

hi viver, long time no chat.

I appreciate your admiration of old master's wisdom and teaching. However, if u do comparison of today's players, u have to also acknowledge the merit of speed and power of today's game. If technique and stroke are so highly valued over speed and power, why the current top 2 players LD and LCW can consistently beat TH, PG (also referenced by wong8egg) where the latter players supposed to have better stroke and techniques ?? Didn't we had a debate before where u went as far to say that top world pro WS can beat our canadian national MS because the formers have better technique and footwork and stroke skill, and these skills can overcome canadian MS's power, speed and inferior techniques and strokes? My disagreement with this comparison is unchange. I value speed and power because I have more room to improve on these variables than stroke and technique. With stroke and technique, the value of further and further improvement, if any, become less and less valuable. Maybe more valuable to the viewing audience with Ooo and Awww but to a player, a point is won or lost, there is no bonus point for artistic value or point deduction for a poor looking stroke. Today desirable quality is what gets u the points in most effective and lowest risk path, that is speed and power. TH fans can oogling all they want about TH backhand smash or his netting skills, bottom line is, did these skills helped him getting more titles? Bruce Lee redefined martial art by extracting only the effective skills from each type of fighting and discarded the ineffective. He use to laugh at those old chinese flowery movement and flailing of arms and legs. Real fight should be over in less than 30 seconds.

I have read the fang kai xiang interview with Racquet Malaysia. I fully understood where he is coming from. His remarks are in the context those olden days. I found one contradiction from him, IMO. He valued techiques and stroke and tactic very highly but he also admired tang X Fu the most as a complete player but yet, tang fu is known to be a power and speed player, who like to attack. Sure tang fu has techique and deception too but back in those days, all good players have them too.

Let me give my explanation why FKX's say those things. You see, back in 50's and 60's, racket is heavy, shaft is extra extra stiff, and the gut string tension is low by today's standard. The smash power back in those days isn't as threaten as today's player and equipment. Therefore, tactic, stroke, techique, deception are more valued. If FKX back then got a glimpse of how fast and powerful of players of today, he would place speed and power more highly.

To prove my point, Fang Kai Xiang himself said he played for china from age of 20 to 38. Back in those days, Men players often play more than TWO events(MS, MD), some even THREE events (MS, MD, XD). There is no way today player's body could last that long in competitive form. This is enough to convince me to conclude that the intensity of past era's matches aren't as high as today's. I won't doubt that they have long matches but that is related to stamina, not intensity and the force exerted on each more powerful stroke.

From FKX interview, it also may explain why LCW is stuck at 2nd best. FKX said "National champion Misbun Sidek has one of the best technique in the world, better than morten frost but he lacks leg power and finishing". With no disrespect to misbun, to me it seem like misbun is teaching LCW techniques more so than speed and power. Not finishing is also LCW's trademark. I think i see a correlationship here.

Yes, I've watched that match on Youtube, but I am not convinced. Simply open up any one of today's game, doesn't has to be LD, and you'll notice immediately the difference between the game pace.

If you are a competitive badminton player, you should know that a fast pacing game would make your regular play and anticipation that much harder.

Now let's look at Peter Gade and Taufik, both have excellent skill and technique, but they are simply outmatch by LCW and LD. That's said, good technique is only one aspect of the game, physical fitness also take a huge part of it. Not to mention LD has excellent technique also, he is extremely deceptive and accurate with his over head shoot, good touches at the net and excellent retrieving ability.

If you've watch this year AE, the commentator (Gail??) also believed that LD has topped all the greats from the past since the Olympic.

Or put it this way...

LD = 4 times AE under his belt (or 5 times, some would agree )
ZJH = 2 times

4 > 2

Fair enough. The conclusions we have are based on our experience. If I watch the ZJH vs Morten Frost match together with Tang Xinfu, surely our conclusions would be very different.

I was a competitive player, represented my club and was for some time was selected to represent the territory where I lived. Trained under professional coaches - Chinese national level for years in a sponsored club. I did some local tournaments in singles and doubles. I played some other XD matches partnering with a lady who used to be a Chinese team player.

A fast paced game is not everything. Can go back and watch for example Dong Jiong vs Hoyer Larssen.

Actually I don't have any problem with your conclusions. All of us have different criteria when judging the best players. For me the all time best is Tang Xinfu, and of course this is for me only. Yours might be somebody else.

Actually I don't have any problem with your conclusions. All of us have different criteria when judging the best players. For me the all time best is Tang Xinfu, and of course this is for me only. Yours might be somebody else.

fair enough, i buy that. Without tang fu, i doubt LD is LD of today.
Since LD is a prodigy of tang fu, if speed and power is secondary to technique and stroke, then LD shouldn't be LD like LD of today. A master do not have to be stuck with one mind set, a true master is constantly learning and changing.

I appreciate your admiration of old master's wisdom and teaching. However, if u do comparison of today's players, u have to also acknowledge the merit of speed and power of today's game. If technique and stroke are so highly valued over speed and power, why the current top 2 players LD and LCW can consistently beat TH, PG (also referenced by wong8egg) where the latter players supposed to have better stroke and techniques ?? Didn't we had a debate before where u went as far to say that top world pro WS can beat our canadian national MS because the formers have better technique and footwork and stroke skill, and these skills can overcome canadian MS's power, speed and inferior techniques and strokes? My disagreement with this comparison is unchange. I value speed and power because I have more room to improve on these variables than stroke and technique. With stroke and technique, the value of further and further improvement, if any, become less and less valuable. Maybe more valuable to the viewing audience with Ooo and Awww but to a player, a point is won or lost, there is no bonus point for artistic value or point deduction for a poor looking stroke. Today desirable quality is what gets u the points in most effective and lowest risk path, that is speed and power. TH fans can oogling all they want about TH backhand smash or his netting skills, bottom line is, did these skills helped him getting more titles? Bruce Lee redefined martial art by extracting only the effective skills from each type of fighting and discarded the ineffective. He use to laugh at those old chinese flowery movement and flailing of arms and legs. Real fight should be over in less than 30 seconds.

I have read the fang kai xiang interview with Racquet Malaysia. I fully understood where he is coming from. His remarks are in the context those olden days. I found one contradiction from him, IMO. He valued techiques and stroke and tactic very highly but he also admired tang X Fu the most as a complete player but yet, tang fu is known to be a power and speed player, who like to attack. Sure tang fu has techique and deception too but back in those days, all good players have them too.

Let me give my explanation why FKX's say those things. You see, back in 50's and 60's, racket is heavy, shaft is extra extra stiff, and the gut string tension is low by today's standard. The smash power back in those days isn't as threaten as today's player and equipment. Therefore, tactic, stroke, techique, deception are more valued. If FKX back then got a glimpse of how fast and powerful of players of today, he would place speed and power more highly.

To prove my point, Fang Kai Xiang himself said he played for china from age of 20 to 38. Back in those days, Men players often play more than TWO events(MS, MD), some even THREE events (MS, MD, XD). There is no way today player's body could last that long in competitive form. This is enough to convince me to conclude that the intensity of past era's matches aren't as high as today's. I won't doubt that they have long matches but that is related to stamina, not intensity and the force exerted on each more powerful stroke.

From FKX interview, it also may explain why LCW is stuck at 2nd best. FKX said "National champion Misbun Sidek has one of the best technique in the world, better than morten frost but he lacks leg power and finishing". With no disrespect to misbun, to me it seem like misbun is teaching LCW techniques more so than speed and power. Not finishing is also LCW's trademark. I think i see a correlationship here.

Well quite a long post. I will try to be short.

Our discussion on WS, if that was a discussion - I don't think you understood my points. First, there is not a statement where I said the top WS would beat the Canadian men players. I stated 'I would not be surprised if the top WS beat the Canadian men players..'

Secondly, our biggest difference - technique and physical attributes for a professional athlete are EQUALLY important to which you beg to differ. Would you compare the before and after OG Lin Dan and analyse what improvements he made? Faster, stronger?

My preferred all time MS player is Tang Xinfu, a player with excellent tactical awareness, great all around skills and superb fitness. Zhao Jianhua is also on my list of preferred players due to same reasons. As in my previous post to another poster, the conclusions and preferences are personal and possibly based on one experience.

Off topic - I don't know much about martial arts, if Bruce Lee redefined it I am totally ignorant. The little bit I spent time on is karate, Goju-Ryu style.

fair enough, i buy that. Without tang fu, i doubt LD is LD of today.
Since LD is a prodigy of tang fu, if speed and power is secondary to technique and stroke, then LD shouldn't be LD like LD of today. A master do not have to be stuck with one mind set, a true master is constantly learning and changing.

I don't understand what you are trying to say... Did anywhere in my post mentioned that speed and power are secondary to technique??

Why don't we judge him to be "Best MS Player" with only consisting the players who enjoyed these privileges ?
Period, my vote is yes.Period.
Would wait for Chong Wei to trash him down.When there's still time left.

IMHO the 1985 ZJH can beat today's Gade and TH rather easily. It is obvious from the videos that ZJH in 1985 was much more athletic than PG and TH today (and we all agree that ZJH's technique is comparable to these two, if not better). PG always gets tired after a few points, and look at how slow TH is! There is no way they can match young ZJH.

Originally Posted by Wong8Egg

Now let's look at Peter Gade and Taufik, both have excellent skill and technique, but they are simply outmatch by LCW and LD. That's said, good technique is only one aspect of the game, physical fitness also take a huge part of it. Not to mention LD has excellent technique also, he is extremely deceptive and accurate with his over head shoot, good touches at the net and excellent retrieving ability.

Our discussion on WS, if that was a discussion - I don't think you understood my points. First, there is not a statement where I said the top WS would beat the Canadian men players. I stated 'I would not be surprised if the top WS beat the Canadian men players..'

Secondly, our biggest difference - technique and physical attributes for a professional athlete are EQUALLY important to which you beg to differ. Would you compare the before and after OG Lin Dan and analyse what improvements he made? Faster, stronger?

My preferred all time MS player is Tang Xinfu, a player with excellent tactical awareness, great all around skills and superb fitness. Zhao Jianhua is also on my list of preferred players due to same reasons. As in my previous post to another poster, the conclusions and preferences are personal and possibly based on one experience.

Off topic - I don't know much about martial arts, if Bruce Lee redefined it I am totally ignorant. The little bit I spent time on is karate, Goju-Ryu style.

Originally Posted by viver

I don't understand what you are trying to say... Did anywhere in my post mentioned that speed and power are secondary to technique??

hmmm, quite contrary view from my end. Your never ending extolls on stroke and techniques skills of past coaches and players, especially from your olden days and observation/experience, and yet, when i brought up examples and cases showing the merit and advantages of speed and power, you then back track and say speed and power are equally important. It seem you can't or do not want to take a firm position on this speed vs technique debate. While in my case, i have firmly stated my position, over and over again, speed and power are MORE valuable than stroke and technique in ranking of importance. I even constructed a pyramid of skill set in order of importance, in another thread. In your case, you have discussed alot about your past experiences and observation but it seem that, IMO, u can't consolidate and organize your past experiences and formulate what is effective and what is ineffective, or their ranking of importance. You just go around about, and use implicit language to cover up potential uncertainty. It's just my past observation from my many discussion with you. Nothing personal.

If you look at your recent statement of your (above underlined), and the past statement of your from a closed thread, dated May 17, 2005

Originally Posted by viver

Given my past experiences, I'd say it is not certain that top Canadian male players could beat the world's top 5 ladies players. I believe the top ladies players have higher skills levels and am not sure if the physical superiority of the male players could compensate in the areas they are lacking in.

Yes, u didn't really said it explicitly but it does sound wishy washy to me. As an analogy, your logic goes like: Given my past experiences, I'd say it is not certain that Lin Dan could beat LCW. I believe LCW has higher skills levels and am not sure if the physical superiority of Lin Dan could compensate in the areas he is lacking (strokes and techniques) in. In another word, if LCW beat LD, you are right, if LD beat LCW, you are right too. You see? I find your logic even harder to understand

hmmm, quite contrary view from my end. Your never ending extolls on stroke and techniques skills of past coaches and players, especially from your olden days and observation/experience, and yet, when i brought up examples and cases showing the merit and advantages of speed and power, you then back track and say speed and power are equally important. It seem you can't or do not want to take a firm position on this speed vs technique debate. While in my case, i have firmly stated my position, over and over again, speed and power are MORE valuable than stroke and technique in ranking of importance. I even constructed a pyramid of skill set in order of importance, in another thread. In your case, you have discussed alot about your past experiences and observation but it seem that, IMO, u can't consolidate and organize your past experiences and formulate what is effective and what is ineffective, or their ranking of importance. You just go around about, and use implicit language to cover up potential uncertainty. It's just my past observation from my many discussion with you. Nothing personal.

If you look at your recent statement of your (above underlined), and the past statement of your from a closed thread, dated May 17, 2005

Yes, u didn't really said it explicitly but it does sound wishy washy to me. As an analogy, your logic goes like: Given my past experiences, I'd say it is not certain that Lin Dan could beat LCW. I believe LCW has higher skills levels and am not sure if the physical superiority of Lin Dan could compensate in the areas he is lacking (strokes and techniques) in. In another word, if LCW beat LD, you are right, if LD beat LCW, you are right too. You see? I find your logic even harder to understand

Well, then I can't control your assumptions and please don't put your words on my mouth. I am pretty clear about what I have said and learned - the 5 directives if you care to read again the post of whatever date, surely I would have put the word EQUALLY important. If your conviction is that speed and power are the most important attributes of a player, who am I to disagree with you.

As for the WS, I still stand on my point. I don't know enough of top Canadian MS players and will not be surprised if they lose to top WS players. I can't affirm on things that are hypothetical!

Well, then I can't control your assumptions and please don't put your words on my mouth. I am pretty clear about what I have said and learned - the 5 directives if you care to read again the post of whatever date, surely I would have put the word EQUALLY important. If your conviction is that speed and power are the most important attributes of a player, who am I to disagree with you.

As for the WS, I still stand on my point. I don't know enough of top Canadian MS players and will not be surprised if they lose to top WS players. I can't affirm on things that are hypothetical!

Then again, just don't assume my thoughts.

hmmm, funny how u see things.
It is quite impossible for me to assume what's your position when my whole point of my previous post is to say that u say things in implicit term, and your positions taken, if any, are wishy washy.

I did not said speed and power are the most important attributes, I SAID speed and power IS MORE important than strokes and techniques. Please understand this difference if you can. Speed, power, strokes, techiques are just some subset of skills that embody a total player. There are a few more but i won't bring them here as it would confuses the issue at hand.

Yes, it is correct MS from nonpower house country like Canada versus top world WS is a hypothetical discussion, that is why i challenge you to pick a stance or a position on this hypothetical scenario, based on your vast knowledge of training and observation of past masters, so we can sort out which skill sets are more important, speed+ power or stroke+ techniques. Even I, with limited experience and knowledges, can take a position on this subject, and offer to open up to your critic since you are much more knowledgeable and experienced. I didn't get that return favor.

I acknowledged that i have none of your vast knowledge and experience but i ask, how come in racket sports, and in most other sports, there are NO MEN VERSUS WOMEN 1 on 1 competiton, even in lower level tournaments, there are no such competiton. Is it the results are so obvious plus that it is politically incorrect to hold such one lob sided competition????